VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Delhi High Court 2018 › High Court of Delhi

Gyan Prakash (Now Deceased) Thr Lrs v. Union of India

Court
High Court of Delhi
Decided
1 October 2018
Bench
Rajiv Sahai Endlawauthor
Case no.
LA.APP. 344/2017

Judgment

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. OCTOBER 01, 2018 'gsr' / pp..

Case details

Parties and counsel

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 1st October, 2018 + GYAN PRAKASH (NOW DECEASED) THR LRS..... Appellant Through: Mr. Dhruv Madan, Adv. Versus UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Yeeshu Jain & Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 impugns the order [dated 16th August, 2016 in LAC No.37/12 (81/16) of the Court of Additional District Judge (ADJ)-02 (South)] on a Reference under Section 30-31 of the Act as well as the order [dated 5th September, 2017 in LAC No.8946/2016 also of the Court of ADJ-02 (South)] of dismissal of an application filed by the appellant for review of the order dated 16th August, 2016. 2. This appeal came up first before this Court on 13th November, 2017 when record of the Reference Court was ordered to be requisitioned. Upon the record being received, vide order dated 5th April, 2018, notice of the appeal was issued to the sole respondent Union of India (UOI). The counsel for the appellant and the counsel for the respondent UOI have been heard. 3. The subject land, being Khasra No.227 (7-18) and 67(1-4) of village Saidulajab, was acquired and an Award No.13/87-88 dated 20th May, 1987 made with respect thereto. The Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) (South), on 7th August, 2012, made a Reference, under Section 30-31 of the Act, reasoning that "the interested persons have not approached for compensation despite passing of more than 24 years of Award and notices sent to them for receiving of compensation" and naming (i) Gyan Prakash, son of Sh. Chuttan, (ii) Shiv Narayan, son of Sh. Gareeb, (iii) Prem Raj, son of Sh. Jeeta, (iv) Saroop Singh, son of Sh. Gareeb, and, (iv) Shri Ram, son of Sh. Govind as the interested persons. 4. The requisitioned record received in this Court is only of the application for review which was dismissed vide order dated 5th September, 2017 and the record of the original Reference has not been received. The counsel for the appellant has however handed over in the Court a certified copy of the order sheets of the Reference Court and which are taken on record. 5. A perusal of the said order sheets of Reference Court shows, (i) that the Reference was taken up by the ADJ to whom it was assigned, on 14th August, 2012; (ii) on 9th October, 2012, the Reference Court ordered the cheque for Rs.3,21,087.90 paise on record to be encashed and money thereunder to be kept in interest bearing deposit and notice to be issued to 'interested persons'; (iii) on 19th November, 2013, the appellant appeared before the Reference Court; (iv) though the interested persons shown in the Reference were five as aforesaid, but only the appellant and Saroop Singh appeared and none appeared for the remaining interested persons viz. Shiv Narayan, Prem Raj and Shri Ram, who were proceeded against ex parte; (v) the appellant died during the pendency of the Reference and was substituted by his heirs who have filed the present appeal. 6. The appellant, in the present appeal has not impleaded any of the other interested persons, not even Saroop Singh who was appearing before the Reference Court. 7. The appellant filed objections dated 21st April, 2015 to the Reference inter alia pleading, that (i) upon coming into force of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Right to Fair Compensation Act), a fresh cause of action had accrued to the appellant; (ii) the Notification dated 5th November, 1980 under Section 4 and the subsequent Notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and in respect of which Award No.13/87-88 was passed, had lapsed by operation and effect of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation Act; (iii) the physical possession of the land had not been taken and continued to be with the appellant; (iv) the compensation assessed vide the Award aforesaid was never tendered or paid to the appellant or

Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.